The new perspective on Paul – Part 5

By Christian

---

Having dealt with the new view of Paul in the first four parts, we want to look at some aspects of exegesis in this final part. After all, what matters to us (at least to me) is what we can take from the text of the New Testament, and not so much what scholars have worked out (made up?) as theology on top of it over the centuries:

THE PROOF of any theory about interpreting Paul’s letters lies, of course, in the pudding of exegesis (= method of interpretation). That is, can the theory actually make good sense of what Paul said—and not just some of what the apostle wrote, but all of it?

Chapter 6

[Also in this part, the quotes are from the book „The New Perspective on Paul – An Introduction“ by Prof. Kent L. Yinger, which forms the basis for this series.]

Prof. Yinger discusses some of these points in more detail in Chapter 6.

Works of law

What is the status of the discussion on this?

Of course, most deeply in dispute is whether or not “works of law” has something to do with legalism. When Paul objects to justification “by works of law” (Gal 2:16), does this refer to the more traditional conviction that doing these works will earn justification (= legalism), or that one must belong to the covenant group, Israel? …

This exegetical debate seems to have reached an impasse. …

Whether Paul opposed legalism is a larger issue than the exegesis of one phrase. Like most Jews of the day, Paul surely thought that legalism—doing enough to put God in our debt so that he “owes” us salvation—was ludicrous, even if that’s not what he’s talking about with “works of law.”

Chapter 6

Paul: Converted or called?

In the context of the new perspective on Paul, a perhaps surprising question arises for us:

Was Paul converted? That is, after the Damascus road experience, did he remain an adherent of Judaism, or did he convert to something else?

Chapter 6

Yinger elaborates on three arguments:

First, to speak of Paul switching religions to Christianity is anachronistic. That is, we are taking a later situation and imposing it on an earlier, quite different, situation. In the middle of the first century there was not yet an identifiable religion called “Christianity.” Occasionally Jesus-followers were called christianoi (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16), but this was simply the way some antagonists tried to label and differentiate these folks from others as supporters of a particular figure or party, Christ.4 Paul did not have to quit Judaism to become a Christ-follower.

Second, this use of “conversion” for Paul muddies the water as to one of the main issues in his letters. Paul’s gospel, rather than being an attempt to persuade folks to leave (legalistic) Judaism for (gracious) Christianity, is the key in his struggle over the identity of this Christ-movement in the Roman Empire. …
Some preachers, like Paul, are saying they don’t even need to bear the marks of Jewish identity in order to belong to this Jewish movement. They can be justified by faith in Christ rather than by being Jewish (“works of law”). Others are just as adamant that they do need to become Jewish (“it is necessary for them to be circumcised,” Acts 15:5).

And third, Paul himself uses the language of prophetic calling rather than conversion for this element in his life. “But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace . . .” (Gal 1:15; see also Rom 1:1). …
Paul did not view himself as preaching a change of religions, but as a Jewish prophet calling Israel and the nations to follow the God of Israel who has now revealed himself at the end of time in Messiah Jesus.

Chapter 6

What exactly was the curse of the law?

One passage in Galatians is also discussed in the context of the new view of Paul:

For all who rely on the works of the law [lit. “all who are of works of law” (see pages 20–21 and 21n6 above)] are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

Galater 3:10-13 NRSV

Protestants and others have interpreted this passage in this way since the Reformation at the latest:

1. The Law pronounces a curse upon anyone who fails to keep it. (Paul quotes Deut 27:26.)
2. No human being can keep the Law perfectly.
3. Thus, all human beings fall under the Law’s curse.
4. However, Christ took upon himself humanity’s sin and curse at the cross, and thus purchased release from this curse.

Chapter 6

Authors of the new perspective on Paul have rightly questioned the conclusion from points 1 and 2. They pointed out that the sacrificial system, the possibility of repentance and divine forgiveness indicate that less than perfect obedience was allowed, i.e. that they make provision for imperfections.

Personally, I think this argument is not only very plausible, but also extremely important. Anyone who reads the Torah with an open mind will notice that a lot is said about the sacrifices. But it is never about appeasing unpredictable, angry gods. Among other things, it is about repeatedly calling to mind the holiness of Yahweh and, by contrast, the status of the people. But it doesn’t stop there. It describes exactly what needs to be done so that the people in this covenant are freed from their „sins“. In addition to the sacrifices, this is also depicted very vividly:

“When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

Leviticus 16:20-22 NASB

What then is the curse of the law that Paul speaks of? There are different views here, but there is also a common ground: this is about the nomism of the covenant, and blessing or curse are linked to faithfulness to the divine path revealed in the covenant.

Did Paul have a burdened or a clear conscience?

According to the Lutheran tradition, Paul must actually have had a burdened conscience. In the New Testament, however, we find this statement by Paul:

as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

Philippians 3:6 NRSV

That doesn’t sound like a burdened conscience due to his sinfulness, does it? And late in his life, according to the Acts of the Apostles, he even says so himself:

While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.”

Acts 23:1 NRSV

And Paul also addresses the Corinthians accordingly:

I am not aware of anything against myself.

Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity.

1. Corinthians 4:4, 2. Corinthians 1:12 NRSV

Some have argued with various texts that Paul did have a troubled conscience and that these texts should be interpreted quite differently. However, the arguments are complicated and seem rather forced to me. I would therefore like to leave it at a reference to the book.

Romans 10:3

But doesn’t Romans 10:3 speak of salvation by one’s own works?

For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.

Romans 10:3 NRSV

And in contrast, Paul says about himself:

be found in [Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.

Philippians 3:9 NRSV

But is Paul really contrasting self-righteousness through their own works here? Or not the righteousness they had by works according to their covenant? „It was “their own,” their Jewish covenantal righteous status, theirs as opposed to someone else’s or some other sort. Their problem is not legalism, but ignorance in their commendable zeal for God (Rom 10:2). Wright’s translation brings out the NPP sense nicely:“

They were ignorant, you see, of God’s covenant faithfulness, and they were trying to establish a covenant status of their own; so they didn’t submit to God’s faithfulness.

Romans 10:3 Wright‘s translation

Works-righteousness for Abraham in Romans 4

Finally, I would like to take up Romans 4 here, because it is an important argument for those who want to refute the new view of Paul:

What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness

Romans 4:1-5 NRSV

In short, the context must also be taken into account for the exegesis of these verses. The context has a strong reference to God’s covenant with the Jews. „In 3:29–31 Paul noted that God justifies both Jews and Gentiles “by faith” rather than by “works of law.” Since the identity of God’s covenant people seemed to be tied up in the OT with Jewish identity (“works of law”), but Paul denies that connection, this raises the question which leads into chapter 4: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” (Rom 3:31)“

In relation to verse 4, an argument is given by Dunn:

Dunn adds, this reckoning as a gift versus as a calculation of prior faithfulness refers to Abraham’s initial justification, whereas traditional interpretation usually has final justification in view (“saved by works”). The point is actually quite simple: God’s initial reckoning of Abraham to be righteous occurred prior to (apart from, without) any acts of faithfulness, any works, on his part.

Chapter 6

Conclusion

In this series, we have been given an overview of the current state of research into the new perspective on Paul. Of course, there are still many details and passages in Paul’s letters that need to be discussed. However, please refer to Prof. Yinger’s book and the literature cited therein.

In conclusion, I would just like to point out once again why the new perspective on Paul is important for our faith:

The new view of Paul is not new at all, but corresponds to what Paul originally said and meant.
„NPP writings are trying to get “back to Paul,” not “back to Rome” or “Luther” or any other theological movement or church historical period.“

1. First-century Judaisms were not legalistic, but were characterized by covenantal nomism—saved by God’s grace and obligated to follow his ways.
2. Since Jews were not espousing works-righteousness, Paul was not opposing legalism in his letters.
3. Instead, at issue was a question of social identity: “Who belongs to the people of God and how is this known?” i.e., does one have to be Jewish—be circumcised, keep food laws, celebrate Sabbath, etc.—in order to inherit the promises to Abraham?
4. Paul does not differ from most other Jews as to the roles of grace, faith, and works in salvation; where he differs is the conviction that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and the Lord of all creation. No longer is Torah the defining center of God’s dealings; what counts now is belonging to Christ.

Better grasp on Paul’s letters.

We avoid focusing on Western individualism (how do I get saved).

Moving from the Old to the New Testament is made easier.

Paul is not founding a new religion, any more than Jesus did, but Paul is in line with Jesus‘ statements.

And I put it somewhat provocatively: Anyone who believes (*) that faith in Christ alone is necessary for salvation in order to receive this grace, and that one’s own works are completely unimportant, is not following Christ or Paul, but Martin Luther and traditional Protestantism.

(*) I will leave out theological subtleties such as justification, sanctification, synergism etc. here.